3 ms·

In my part of the world, I pay for netflix (and deezer and apple streaming music) but we're locked out of many good shows because of artificially created region

In my part of the world, I pay for netflix (and deezer and apple streaming music) but we're locked out of many good shows because of artificially created region restrictions with no technical merit or justification other than the fact that the movie industry wants to squeeze blood from every region in the world separately, at the very least. Even with our local cable companies inking deals with HBO and other big names, we still don't get the latest shows or episodes even through their local streaming video on demand services, we have to wait months or sometimes years before it's legally available in our region... and I live in a country where people don't blink while splurging on the latest iPhone 6+ or Macbook pro or a new playstation 4. There's absolutely no logical reason that customers willing to pay for these shows should be locked out "just because", and this is what drives people to alternate tools like popcorn time. The music industry had their first taste with napster in the early '00s, and they fought the ideas tooth and nail instead of realizing it could be mutually beneficial to embrace this technology and bring music to more people faster. Now the movie industry is making the same mistakes and are facing the same result.

bko 11y ago
When people view the current law as unjust, they are more likely to break it. This has a very negative impact on society as a whole as it makes them more cynical about their institutions and leads to more rule breaking unrelated to the unjust law. It would be in everybody's best interest to rethink how we approach digital property rights across borders. Paul Robinson had recently discussed this in a podcast: > One of the chapters we have is on Prohibition, American Prohibition. Which I think is really wonderful. Because that really demonstrates that dynamic on a large scale. For a lot of interesting reasons we throw it in, Prohibition. But then it's broken so often, even by public officials. Nobody takes it seriously. So, it's no surprise that you have a lot of violation of prohibition laws. What's less obvious to people but I think really telling, is that during Prohibition, crime rates generally went up. Even if it had nothing to do with Prohibition. You had crime rates going up because there was this general effect. People would look at the criminal law, see that they simply didn't see drinking alcohol as condemnable conduct and that undermined their faith that the criminal really knew what was condemnable and what wasn't; saw a lot of people breaking the criminal law and not feeling bad about it. There was, the community sense was that the criminal law was just being silly and out of step here. And that reduction in its reputation, it's moral reputation, translated into a lot of other areas. It was a very bad time for crime, until Prohibition was repealed and criminal law started trying to earn back some of its lost reputation. [0] [0] http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/08/paul_robinson_o.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/08/paul_robinson_o.htm...
- caskance 11y ago
  The observation implies that public opinion should match law, that doesn't necessarily mean it's the latter that should change rather than the former.
  - bko 11y ago
    I always thought the purpose of a legal system (in the US) having a jury of your peers was that the law reflect changing societal attitudes. Law loses legitimacy when it's not reflective of the will of the people.
    - caskance 11y ago
      Yes, they should be in agreement. That doesn't say anything about which one should be in charge. With modern propaganda technology, it's possible to change the will of the people match the law whereas historically changing the law to match the will of the people was the only option.
caskance 11y ago
What makes legal restrictions any less "valid" than technical ones? Just because you're an engineer and not a lawyer?
- ionised 11y ago
  Technical restrictions are subject to the laws of physics and our current understanding. Legal restrictions are subject to human whim and can be changed to something more sensible. I'd definitely say they were less valid.
  - caskance 11y ago
    If you break the laws of physics, you get published in some nice journals. If you break the laws of man, you get locked in a cage or possibly killed.

bko 11y ago

When people view the current law as unjust, they are more likely to break it. This has a very negative impact on society as a whole as it makes them more cynical about their institutions and leads to more rule breaking unrelated to the unjust law. It would be in everybody's best interest to rethink how we approach digital property rights across borders. Paul Robinson had recently discussed this in a podcast: > One of the chapters we have is on Prohibition, American Prohibition. Which I think is really wonderful. Because that really demonstrates that dynamic on a large scale. For a lot of interesting reasons we throw it in, Prohibition. But then it's broken so often, even by public officials. Nobody takes it seriously. So, it's no surprise that you have a lot of violation of prohibition laws. What's less obvious to people but I think really telling, is that during Prohibition, crime rates generally went up. Even if it had nothing to do with Prohibition. You had crime rates going up because there was this general effect. People would look at the criminal law, see that they simply didn't see drinking alcohol as condemnable conduct and that undermined their faith that the criminal really knew what was condemnable and what wasn't; saw a lot of people breaking the criminal law and not feeling bad about it. There was, the community sense was that the criminal law was just being silly and out of step here. And that reduction in its reputation, it's moral reputation, translated into a lot of other areas. It was a very bad time for crime, until Prohibition was repealed and criminal law started trying to earn back some of its lost reputation. [0] [0] http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/08/paul_robinson_o.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/08/paul_robinson_o.htm...

caskance 11y ago
The observation implies that public opinion should match law, that doesn't necessarily mean it's the latter that should change rather than the former.
- bko 11y ago
  I always thought the purpose of a legal system (in the US) having a jury of your peers was that the law reflect changing societal attitudes. Law loses legitimacy when it's not reflective of the will of the people.
  - caskance 11y ago
    Yes, they should be in agreement. That doesn't say anything about which one should be in charge. With modern propaganda technology, it's possible to change the will of the people match the law whereas historically changing the law to match the will of the people was the only option.

caskance 11y ago

What makes legal restrictions any less "valid" than technical ones? Just because you're an engineer and not a lawyer?

ionised 11y ago
Technical restrictions are subject to the laws of physics and our current understanding. Legal restrictions are subject to human whim and can be changed to something more sensible. I'd definitely say they were less valid.
- caskance 11y ago
  If you break the laws of physics, you get published in some nice journals. If you break the laws of man, you get locked in a cage or possibly killed.